Councillors in the City of Spruce Grove want residents to know exactly what they are trying to restrict with a ban on Conversion Therapy.

Council opted to refer second reading of the bylaw back to administration for review after a lengthy discussion during their regular meeting on Monday. An update will need to be made to the bylaw to clearly define what constitutes as conversion therapy, and what does not.

Conversion therapy is widely considered to be a specifically harmful, coercive practice, defined as any attempt to change a persons sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Councillors and residents alike worry a wrongly worded bylaw will create fear where it is unnecessary.

“I’m uncomfortable with the bylaw. Concerns I have heard come down to interpretation. When you define conversion therapy as any practice, any therapy, there’s no clear definition to differentiate between what is conversion therapy and what is just talking to somebody,” said Coun. Jeff Acker.

Acker added residents specifically in their emails they would support their children regardless of their decision, but worried simply talking about sexual orientation could lead to a conversion therapy complaint.

“This is uncomfortable because I’ve received emails where parents are asking if it’s going to violate their parental right to speak to their child. They’re saying, it’s not that I would try to convert them, I would support them, but if I talk to them about their sexuality and they go to school and mention that, am I going to be investigated?. Is that what the intent of this bylaw is?” questioned Acker. “I’m concerned that’s overreaching as a municipality.”

Additionally, councillors took issue with the part of the bylaw referring to valid consent. Valid consent, as defined by the city, means that a person can participate voluntarily and has capacity to consent. Councillor Erin Stevenson argued there is a difference between conversations with two consenting adults, and conversion therapy.

“To me it’s redundant. If we say we’re going to protect all persons rather than just minors and those with cognitive disabilities, we don’t need that definition anymore. You might think you’re going into something to get help, but if you’re going into it and somebody has the idea something is wrong with you and you need to be fixed, you can’t consent to that. I think this is the very loophole exemption we’re trying to avoid,” said Stevenson.

Others took exception to the clause in the bylaw pertaining to medical professionals. They bylaw bans any practice, treatment or service designed to change or convert an individual’s sexual orientation gender identity or expression, not including treatment by a medical professional that explores aspects of an individual’s sexual orientation.

Councillor Dave Oldham said the majority of medical professionals are already restricted from practicing conversion therapy by governing boards and codes of conduct, and added the City’s definition could be misconstrued.

“As long as we are only exploring aspects of an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression why are we limiting that to medical professionals? why can’t everyone do that,” said Oldham.

Oldham then questioned how the bylaw might affect school guidance councillors who do not fall into the category of medical professional. Guidance councillors assist and talk with students on a daily basis. Oldham said the current bylaw creates fear they could be punished for talking with a student if they approach them with questions on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

“It’s clear we do not want conversion therapy, but how does this fit in with a school councillor as an example fit into this discussion, in terms of their ability to work with and mentor a young person through their journey of life. They do that every day,” said Oldham. “Outside of parents they work with youth the most. I don’t want conversion therapy in our community, but I don’t want the 99 per cent of good people who want to help our youth to be put in a position where they can’t.”

Despite concerns over possibilities of being vague in their definition, councillors unanimously agreed they do not want any coercive harmful or abusive practice taking place in Spruce Grove. Even Councillor Wayne Rothe, who voted against referring the bylaw back to administration and opposed the bylaw at first reading, said he is against anybody being forced to undergo any type of abusive action within the City.

Before any ban can be enacted, updates will need to be made to the bylaw to clearly convey what the city is aiming to restrict with the ban.

“To me I see you can’t change or convert a person or tell them they’re wrong but you can help them to figure out what and who they are. I think if you take out medical professional this really does cover it,” said Coun. Chantal McKenzie. “In essence it is a little bit vague, but that’s because It isn’t an easy definition but what the definition comes down to is we don’t want people telling others they’re wrong for how they feel.”